Defending Assange and Basic Freedoms: Think Bigger – Much Bigger

Al Burke

Around the globe, well-informed and dedicated souls have for years been explicating the persecution of Julian Assange and its much broader implications. They include the likes of Suzie Dawson in New Zealand, Caitlin Johnstone in Australia, John Pilger in Britain and Joe Lauria in the United States, to mention just a few.

Their work has been invaluable for those who want to learn, or are at least susceptible to the facts of the case. But there is sadly little evidence that their efforts have yet to result in a fundamental shift in public awareness or concern. That is likely because the persecutors and their allies are more lavishly funded, better organised and more firmly established.

Those malignant forces include the USA-led governments that have long conspired in the persecution of Assange and the corresponding threat to the basic freedoms of everyone. Equally or even more important, they also include all but a small and shifting segment of the world’s most influential media — including such venerable institutions as The Guardian which in the past has exposed and denounced government crimes rather than, as in the Assange case, aiding and abetting them.

Unused potential

What has long been needed is a large and well-organised structure which is capable of leading an effective challenge to the powerful conspiracy against Julian Assange and basic freedoms. There is much to suggest that the potential for such a structure exists.

My experience of the Swedish population, for example, indicates that it includes many individuals who by various means have managed to acquire accurate knowledge of the abuses inflicted on Julian Assange and are anxious to support him in any way possible. But there is nowhere for them to turn with their offers of time, money and other resources.

In the prosperous and well-ordered country where Assange’s current plight began nine years ago, there is no established means to gather and mobilise what appear to be substantial resources waiting to be used. The same conditions almost certainly exist in many other countries, as well.

Clearly, there has been a woeful lack of leadership and organisation on the scale required. For that, I am as much to blame as anyone.

Time to act

The next major event in the persecution of Julian Assange is scheduled for the end of February next year, with a hearing in a British court on the USA’s extradition request. Assuming it takes place as planned, that hearing will be the start of a process which is expected to drag on for one to several years.

That allows some time to organise a sustained, comprehensive campaign on behalf of Julian Assange and the basic freedoms at stake. To boost chances of engaging the general public, it would be advisable to focus on the basic rights at stake for everyone rather than on their denial to a single individual. That applies especially in this case, given the mainstream media’s relentless character assassination of Assange. As explained by Nils Melzer, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, etc.:

In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide.”Nils Melzer, Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange, Medium, 26 June 2019

One consequence is that thousands of commentators who have never met Julian Assange feel free, and for some reason(s) motivated, to revile his personality in no uncertain terms. Even those who condemn the abuses inflicted upon him often feel compelled to protect their own reputations against the risk of besmirchment by association.

The basic formula is that it is important to concern oneself with the persecution of Assange ”even if he is a terrible person who has done terrible things”. That is not a message which is likely to incite a mass awakening on his behalf.

This almost certainly helps to explain why it has been so difficult to arouse public outrage at the gross mistreatment of Assange. It may also help to explain why so few leading figures in the arts, academia, entertainment and other fields have thus far, publicly at least, become engaged in the case and what it so alarmingly represents.

Plan & organise

As the most urgent priority is to prevent the extradition of Assange to the United States, a major shift in U.K. public and political opinion is the evident primary task at hand, at least to begin with. But interest in his case is global, as is the growing awareness that the issues involved concern everyone. It has even begun to dawn on some mainstream journalists that their own fates are inextricably linked to Assange’s.

In light of the above, I propose that a conference be held as soon as possible to plan and begin to organise a major international campaign in defence of Julian Assange and freedom of expression, including the unrestricted freedom to publish.

Anyone who is interested in participating in and/or offering advice on such a conference is very welcome to contact me via e-mail at [email protected] or tel. +46/8 731 9200.

All who respond will be kept informed of developments, if any.

Al Burke is an editor and translator who in 1988 immigrated to Sweden from the United States. Websites: www.julian-assange.se and www.nnn.se

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Connect with

Connect with

Subscribe

newestoldestmost voted

Notify of

Robbobbobin

Seems to me that this par-baked cake would be all-round better if it were given the other half of the necessary baking time.

There already exist several so-far fairly effective Assange defence and consequent Wikileaks-related freedom of speech and publication efforts in various quarters and, with Assange’s current incarceration to be followed by extradition hearings and probable appeals providing a reasonably solid platform and timeframe for concerted, world-wide action directed to the specific goal of his exoneration on all further charges and release from any threat of rendition, as noted ATL, those efforts have, since mid-June, been in the process of “folding” that specific aspect of their activities into a single, co-ordinated, apolitical association focussed on just that:

To return to the opening paragraph above: that the author of the article appears not to know of, or chooses not to mention, this communal development a full six weeks after at least three–and perhaps all four–of the individuals he mentions do know of and endorse it, is indicative of the possibility that, to avoid an unnecessary diversion of all available resouces from an encompassing project already well underway, maybe he should first do some (further?) research and, possibly, consultative integration of his proposal, before continuing.

In answer to this unpleasantry: I am, in fact, aware of a great many initiatives that have been taken, but did not mention them all for what ought to be the obvious reason that to do so would require MUCH more space and would have added little to the proposal. But I am not aware of any “single, co-ordinated, apolitical association” already formed, with a functioning organisation and a clear plan of action. That lack of awareness is evidently shared by the readers from around the world who have responded to my proposal with appreciation and suggestions. As should be evident from a reading of the text, I am merely proposing that interested parties get together in order to devise a plan and begin to organize a coherent global movement. If that is already in the works, by all means let it proceed. When and where will that be? I cannot find those essential details among the snide remarks.
— Al Burke

Vote Up10Vote Down Reply

Aug 5, 2019 8:45 PM

Robbobbobin

Had you attempted direct contact with either organization clearly specified in the link before I posted my unpleasant snideness and if not, have you contacted either directly since?

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 6, 2019 6:39 AM

mark

The people who rule over us are simply evil, satanic, malevolent, malignant, malicious.
Once you understand that, everything else falls into place.

Vote Up7-1Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 10:11 PM

Einstein

Poor Assange has already been memory-holed.
In a month or two, people will be asking ‘who was he?’

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 5:05 PM

Molloy

Yes, RN. Fundamental importance:
“When there is only one intelligent standard, the spiritual.
If we can live according to our own light, and that is possible only if individuals reach to their innermost core through meditation, then all this criminal wastage of energy can be stopped.
Almost ninety percent of our energy is wasted in these unconscious arrangements, war, killing, violence, revenge.
The earth can become paradise itself, because if one hundred percent energy can become available now to creativity, to science, to music, to painting, to poetry, we can create for the first time a real caring, aware, intelligent society of human beings.
Start by Freeing Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning!
We are the last generation which has the possibility to rebel.”

imho, “spiritual” is frequently misconstrued as being egotistical. I think you really intend highlighting the Socratic ‘good’, which is ‘How To Be’ (as a human).
Sláinte

The US government through illegal wars, has murdered hundreds of thousands of individuals, and destroyed sovereign countries with impunity, and yet their courts and their law and their police are going to severely punish the whistle blowers who had the courage to inform the rest of the world of Americas murderous psychopathic criminality.

What kind of justice is this?

The fact is that the US society wants only revenge.

But it wants to camouflage it in beautiful words of justice.

They will do it with a method, there will be a great trial and a great show,

“Justice has to be done.”

In reality it is pure and simple revenge, one hundred percent revenge.

But it is done with great ritual, in a beautiful temple of justice, in the court, where paid servants of society are sitting as judges.

These paid servants of society will go through a ceremonial ritual, which they call a trial, and finally the non US so-called traitor, namely Julian Assange, will be sentenced in absentia in Virginia!

Your courts and your judges are not really men of justice, they are just your hangmen.

They are the murderers appointed by the society, in the name of justice, to take revenge.

They murder, they kill, but in the name of so-called justice.

Society cannot tolerate somebody who is rebellious, because they will destroy the whole rotten structure.

Athens could not tolerate Socrates, not because he was wrong, he was absolutely right, but Athens could not tolerate him because if he had been tolerated then the whole rotten structure of the society would have gone, been thrown to the dogs, then the society would have collapsed.

So Socrates had to be sacrificed to society.

It will be the most evolved society when there will be no need for any law, no need for any morality, no need for the state, for politicians, for courts, for the magistrate, for the police, for the military.

When there is only one intelligent standard, the spiritual.

If we can live according to our own light, and that is possible only if individuals reach to their innermost core through meditation, then all this criminal wastage of energy can be stopped.

Almost ninety percent of our energy is wasted in these unconscious arrangements, war, killing, violence, revenge.

The earth can become paradise itself, because if one hundred percent energy can become available now to creativity, to science, to music, to painting, to poetry, we can create for the first time a real caring, aware, intelligent society of human beings.

Assange’s situation has been noticed by the media in the US but its not making a big deal about it at the moment. I’m quite sure they will come to his aid when the time is ripe because what the government is trying to do is upset a long established precedent of the independence of the press, a precedent that was codified in the landmark Pentagon Papers case a generation ago. The government will argue that on-line media isn’t the same as print media, they’ll probably come up with a slew of novel technicalities that will try to prove black is white but ultimately they’re impinging on press freedom which is definitely a third rail in the US.
This may explain why Assange is being held on some bogus holding charge until next year. The UK doesn’t have the same level of protections as the US so he can be housed in what is the UK’s equivalent of Guantanamo, partly to beat him down, partly to make access to him difficult and mostly so that the relevant forces can be marshaled to railroad him. He has to be beaten down “pour encouager les autres”; there’s no other explanation for why so many resources have been employed to keep him caged, so much effort has been expended on what are obviously bogus Swedish allegations and so many negative stories have been published about him. Its actually surprising that he hasn’t suffered an unfortunate ‘accident’ but I suppose that might prevent him from being made a proper example of.

Vote Up60Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 8:14 AM

Question This

Assange symbolizes resistance against the system, he has to be taken down, his life is over, but they wont kill him, they will callously keep him breathing as long as possible as an example to any of us who still cling to any notion of freedom or show any sign of dissent.

How to reach Joe and Joan Public bypassing the compromised MSM and Big Social Media?

Vote Up3-1Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 4:32 AM

Brian Harry

Shouldn’t Assange’s situation be a mater for discussion by the United Nations General Assembly? I know they’re useless in the great scheme of things, but the SILENCE from governments all over the world is ‘DEAFENING’.
We know that the American(and British Government) are corrupted by “Special Interests”, but the future of “Freedom and Democracy”(don’t laugh) is at stake.
If the Brits and the Septics get away with fascist acts against Assange, WE can ALL kiss our ASS goodbye

Vote Up60Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 3:00 AM

Brian Harry

“matter”

Vote Up10Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 3:01 AM

Question This

Well there’s an irony, the deluded belief (not offense intended) the UN are somehow the good guys & not complicit in the neo-liberal tyranny. .

Vote Up40Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 11:10 AM

Brian Harry

Question Time. The UN was set up by the winners of WWII, who gave themselves the power of VETO, to allow them to Over-rule the United Nations. The rest of the World’s members just sit there and eat shite…….(AND, it was set up in New York)

Vote Up10Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 9:09 PM

Question This

Apologies read your comment to quickly, didn’t catch its full context. But my point still stands it was setup by neo-liberals following on from the league of nations to exercise its power under the pretense of security & peace, funny how we’ve been plagued with wars ever since.

Vote Up10Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 9:34 PM

Brian Harry

No problem. I got your ‘drift’……

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 9:46 PM

Brian Harry

“It is no coincidence that the Century of total war coincided with the century of Central Banks”……..Ron Paul.

“Every war, when it comes or before it comes, is represented as an act of self defence against a homicidal maniac”……George Orwell.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 9:51 PM

Reveal

If the Elites in the US are strong defenders of free-speech and human rights, why then, why are they relentlessly assaulting and torturing whistleblowers like Julian Assange?

Look at where the money coming from for the Civil Human Rights Front in Hong Kong:
“the coalition behind the recent protests receive or have received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) a U.S. funded soft-power organization that doles out money in the interests of U.S. imperialism. These include the: Hong Kong Institute of Human Resource Management, Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, Hong Kong Journalists Association, Civic Party, Labor Party and Democratic Party.”

How is the US National Endowment for Democracy is not protecting and defending Assange, but instead they are eager to sow division and conflict between Hong Kong and the Chinese government?

Vote Up60Vote Down Reply

Aug 2, 2019 11:57 PM

DunGroanin

Err .. this is all over various alternate independent sites including this one…

What actually is being suggested here? A ‘Free Nelson Mandela’ ‘Steve Biko’ campaign and songs? A ‘Rock against Racism’ front? A boycot of something? A ‘Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’? Or just a whole lot of grafitti? Maybe legal action against the msm and it’s personalities? ( ooh i like that last one! Maybe in the CJEU while we still can!)

NOTHING WILL CHANGE WITHOUT A POLITICAL WILL.

That means a general election. It also means insisting on a fair and free news media not the wall to wall propaganda via the msm and the advent of the new improved 6th Battalion to attack the truth.

Vote Up60Vote Down Reply

Aug 2, 2019 9:23 PM

Deschutes

Extra! Extra! Read all about it–U.S. federal judge has ruled in Julian Assange’s favor in Assange vs. the DNC, a lawsuit the DNC instigated against Julian Assange alleging he colluded with Russia and Putin against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. This is a HUGE victory for Assange!!! Not surprisingly, this is not being reported in the corporate media OR the “alternative media”. Best article I could come up with was from the WSWS.org, to wit-

“A federal court ruling last Tuesday dismissing a Democratic National Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was a devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate” conspiracy theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media and the intelligence agencies for the past three years.”

The judge’s ruling here is a huge setback for the DNC, the CIA/Pentagon, and their ilk. Some good news for a change.

Vote Up140Vote Down Reply

Aug 2, 2019 6:20 PM

Question This

It is quite amazing the things you don’t see or read in the MSM I recently linked to a story where Tom Watson was reported to the labour party for antisemitism, no word of it anywhere on MSM, & I thought the MSM were obsessed with antisemitism in the labour party LOL.

I saw this earlier this week on George Galloway talk show about the police having to intervene where a protester was being literally murdered in plain view on top of the Bahrain embassy in London, again not a word of it on MSM.

But endless daily articles on Russia Gate, which we all know is a non story, what else are they tying to distract us from seeing & hearing? Journalism is all but dead & with social media censorship now its not got long left to go.

Surely the facts that Chelsea Manning is an intelligence asset and the Collateral Murder video is a fake can help Julian’s case. I wish someone would provide opinion on these facts so I don’t have to keep bleating about them every time an article on Julian is published.

Please can someone provide an opinion on whether these two facts will help Julian’s case.

You’d get more traction if you didn’t misuse the word ‘fact’ to refer to your interpretation. You believe these things and you may of course be correct in your reasoning, but they are a long way from the level of proof required in order to be described as fact.

When there is precedence, logic and a number of pieces of evidence that work together to support an hypothesis and absolutely zero pieces of evidence or logic to support any opposing hypotheses I feel quite free to call something a fact.

If you have any evidence to support the hypothesis that Chelsea Manning is a genuine whistleblower, the Collateral Murder video is genuine or that Adrian Lamo and Ethan McCord are who they are purported to be, please let me know what it is.

The absolutely, overwhelmingly everywhere-supported, incontrovertible FACT is that they inform us of their hoaxery of us with massive clues so it is actually quite difficult NOT to see the clear evidence of something when you examine it closely unless you choose to do so wilfully or are simply blinded by your chosen “narrative”. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/they-tell-us-clearly.html

The evidence for Chelsea etc is made very clear to us. How they might have made it less obvious that Chelsea Manning is an intelligence asset and the Collateral Murder video a fake:

— Given a more plausible explanation for how she leaked 400,000 documents than “downloaded them onto RW-CDs labelled “Lady Ga Ga” to smuggle them through security.”

— Not had her exit the court to undertake her initially-determined 35-year jail sentence with a spring in her step and a smile on her face

— Not had her first interview on her release after her alleged 7 year jail sentence be with Juju Chang of ABC’s Nightline and have her say things such as:

——In response to “So many people call you a traitor; many people call you a hero. Who is Chelsea Manning?,” “I’m just me. It’s as simple as that.”

——“Counterinsurgency is not a simple thing. … It’s not as simple as good guys versus bad guys. It’s a mess.”

OffG, I wonder if you’ve actually read the case I’ve made for Chelsea Manning being an intelligence asset and the fakery of the video. Have you done that? That is, of course, what the link leads to – the evidence. If not, you see I could paste everything into a comment here but that would be ugly. I really hope you’ve read it and that you’re not just responding to my claims based simply on my words in my comment. Then again, if you have read it that also makes me wonder about your comment because I think the case is very compelling.

Vote Up0-3Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 12:43 AM

Robbobbobin

“OffG, I wonder if you’ve actually read the case I’ve made for […] if you have read it that also makes me wonder about your comment because I think the case is very compelling.

I’ve Occamed OffG (see http://www.wibbly.wobbly.bom) and you know what? They’re not only deeper and deepest state assets, they’re FAKE assets. The evidence is mounting, but who knows what it’s mounting? I hope it has strong legs. Get your ass along to Julian’s next trial and pull out your Occams. If they won’t accept you as the star witness, don’t just Mokum them, Occam them. Better take a mop and bucket along too.

Actually, OffG, when you say “a long way from the level of proof required in order to be described as fact” I wonder what you feel is missing. What is missing from the available evidence that is required for a sufficient level of proof that it can be labelled fact? Where is there doubt?

This comment and its 18 upvotes so well demonstrate the words of 15th century philosopher, Giordano Bruno (said in different ways by many others):

It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

The glaring fallacy evidenced in this comment is that more evidence is required to prove something regardless of how compelling the available evidence is.

The only evidence required to prove something is the evidence that shows that only one hypothesis fits it, that there is an absence of any contradictory evidence and that there is sufficient evidence to work with. That is the only evidence required.

For 9/11 we could take a number of single pieces of evidence and say that each on their own proves that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy.

The classic piece of evidence in this instance is the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in the collapse of WTC-7. Free fall of a high rise steel frame building can only occur in controlled demolition and, as stated by Graeme MacQueen, there is no room in the official story for controlled demolition. There is also zero evidence that anything else caused the collapse – ust a ludicrous, made-up “fire” theory.

For Chelsea we have evidence provided by various sources that indicates she is an intelligence asset combined with the supporting evidence that shows that Adrian Lamo is also an intelligence asset combined with evidence that shows the Collateral Murder video is a fake combined with the evidence that shows Ethan McCord is an actor (of sorts) combined with unbelievable statements about the Crazy Horse 18 crew beyond the video. So we have numerous strands of evidence each supporting the other strands. There is zero evidence contradicting the hypothesis that Chelsea is an intelligence asset. There is also massive precedence of the use of “controlled opposition” which means we would take it as a given that the power elite would use this technique against Wikileaks and then there is further evidence that Wikileaks was used by the CIA to effect the Arab Spring uprisings and that Wikileaks was also used to leak DNC documents (evidence that Seth Rich’s murder was staged).

And yet there is such hostility to this very, very basic, perfectly reasonable notion. Truly astounding how people are so entrenched in their narratives. It’s almost eye-watering … and, of course, the power elite capitalise on this known psychological tendency to entrench in one’s narrative just as they have utilised Wikileaks for their own purposes.

I state that this is the evidence required to prove an hypothesis, assuming the circumstances allow it.

The evidence required to prove an hypothesis is the amount that both:

supports the hypothesis convincingly and

excludes the possibility of any other hypothesis being correct.

If you or the 18 upvoters of your argument against my claim of fact in relation to Chelsea Manning disagree with this definition please let me know why.

Also, please let me know, if, in relation to Chelsea Manning, you think the evidence does not meet these criteria. While one could argue that the evidence is not sufficient to exclude the “genuine” hypothesis, in the absence of any evidence supporting “genuine” and the multiple strands of evidence supporting “fake” not to mention logic and precedence I think it’s fair to say that we can exclude it.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 8, 2019 1:27 AM

Deschutes

According to your linked website Manning is an “asset”? And so is Assange? The Collateral Damage video is all faked? And Wikileaks is fake too? And you believe it all 😀

Deschutes, I’m not a “believer”. I’m a judger of evidence. I put 2 and 2 together to make 4.

What I don’t understand is why you find it so improbable that Chelsea Manning would be a fake whistleblower. How many stories of spies are there? Are you familiar with Lenin’s famous words, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”?

We can take it as a given that when the US government saw the Wikileaks ship on the horizon they had their welcoming party all ready and waiting for its arrival on shore. They would have ANTICIPATED Wikileaks probably even before it was formed. The power elite are very, very experienced in these matters and you should never underestimate them.

If it had occurred to me to question Chelsea Manning’s authenticity at the beginning rather than a decade on I would’ve done that but when Chelsea first appeared on the scene (as Bradley) I knew nothing of “controlled opposition”, false flags, 9/11 or anything of that nature. I was completely clueless. And then, like everyone else, I became steeped in the narrative of Chelsea Manning, brave, transgender whistleblower … until, only recently, a very glamorous photo of her caught my eye and suddenly, doubt arose. I immediately went to that wonderful source of hoaxery clues, Wikipedia, and there my suspicion was supported – especially when I got to the Lady Ga Ga labelling of the CDs. That made me laugh and so I knew I was onto something. And then I watched Chelsea’s first interview after her alleged 7 year jail sentence with Juju Chang of ABC’s Nightline where no one could have looked happier and perkier and be saying things that didn’t match what you’d expect from a genuine whistleblower. And Juju (active member of the Council on Foreign Relations) was ever so friendly with this treasonous leaker of classified information.

And then immediately upon realising who Chelsea really was I suspected the video was a fake … and sure enough, on inspection, it appeared that it is, in the main, genuine pieces of audio stitched together to match but poorly faked footage.

Deschutes, you cannot afford to be steeped in a narrative, you must disengage from the narrative and look carefully at the evidence with a detached eye.

Vote Up0-1Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 1:05 AM

Question This

I’m a judger of evidence(sic)

So how come you rarely post any links to any sound, objective, verifiable, “evidence” ?

And just to add – 9/11 is absolutely wall-to-wall controlled opposition. Wall-to-wall … who knows how much controlled opposition is involved with Wikileaks. I shudder to think.

Vote Up0-1Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 1:19 AM

Robbobbobin

And see flaxgirl August 1:16 AM. Occam don’t Mokum.

Vote Up10Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 4:56 AM

Robbobbobin

No. It’s her fact that Julian is a dupe a.k.a. patsy a.k.a. bunny (rabbit). She has had some past, passing connection with his family and he was a nice little boy, or something like that.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 4:08 AM

Off-Milk

I have come to the same conclusion about Assange. This is just part of the fake ‘culture war’ where both sides are run by the same people.

According to the legacy media, Assange’s accusers and supporters he went into the Ecuadorian in June 2012 and didn’t leave until earlier this year. I know that to be false as I saw him being escorted to the Ecuadorian embassy by the police on Sunday 19th August. Why are we being lied to? I don’t know for certain, but this take makes sense:

Perhaps we are to believe that Assange is saving the internet from censorship, when there is strong evidence it is already being censored by the secret services. Perhaps Assange is just a rat trap for whistleblowers and nothing more? I don’t know, but I know that we are being lied to.

Interesting post by Ronald Thomas West and interesting posts from the Burning Blogger – just to point out that these events were not false flags but false-flag hoaxes – that is always my main point – hoaxes not real false flags. Where people are not wanted killed the term psyop only applies to events where death and injury are staged otherwise the event is not a psyop – it’s some other kind of event.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 12:21 PM

Brian Harry

…..so I don’t have to keep bleating about them…….”
Bleating is something sheep do, and they’ve got no brains either……..

Vote Up60Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 3:07 AM

Toby Russell

In matters like these, the water is always muddy. I don’t know for sure what is true here, so accept that your reading of events might be. For me, however, it is not as important as the principles brought into relief by the narrative, whether or not that narrative is confected. One can get bogged down in the details, lost in endless sifting through information and disinformation, and accomplish very little. My sense of that is playing to their strengths, being divided and conquered by unknowable and infinitely splintering ‘facts’.

Unless I am personally and intimately involved, I have no convictions about details, only about the moral principles raised by the event. In this case, it is freedom of speech and publishing, the rights of whistleblowers, etc. These are vital to sustaining a healthy society. We fight for them as best we can as one part of many other struggles to defend multiple freedoms. If we are duped here and there, so be it. But if the outcome, over time, is the successful defence of those freedoms, being duped does not matter.

I can see your point, Toby, except for the fact that I think the waters are not in the least muddy – at least for much of the dupery. I think it’s very important that when we’re being duped in such a way that they actually tell us that they’re duping us we should, simply for reason and logic’s sake, recognise that dupery. I mean it makes us complete idiots if we accept being duped when all we have to do is read the simple code and recognise it. And if we don’t, how can be blame the power elite for treating us like idiots. It’s always good to think and reason logically and to get simple facts straight when you can.

From the moment my suspicions were aroused by Chelsea’s glamour photo to the time I was convinced she was an intelligence asset was probably an hour or so. And, of course, each time I looked further I saw only further evidence. That’s the thing. Look further – find more evidence. It’s rare you find evidence the opposite way unless they’re being really tricky. When you understand the MO it’s just so easy to recognise. This is why Occam’s Razor works so well – there’s rarely any evidence that can be construed as contradictory so it’s impossible to come up with points that favour any competing hypotheses.

If all the evidence supports one hypothesis and there is zero supporting any competing hypotheses and you’ve seen the same MO over and over you have to apply reason and logic, don’t you? I guess there’s always a chance that you may be wrong (I’ve certainly been wrong – much more right than wrong though I think) but I don’t think it’s better to back off from a belief because you might be wrong when there seems to be overwhelming evidence to support something.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 4, 2019 2:22 AM

Toby Russell

I’ve certainly been wrong – much more right than wrong though I think

That’s the uncertainty I’m addressing, and, obviously, I share it. So for me it’s a matter of strategy derived from a few simple logical questions:

Was I there and deeply involved throughout?

Is fakery possible in this case?

Is there a clear principle worth defending?

Like almost all humans, you and I want to see right done. But championing the so-called ‘correct’ version of events and the ‘correct’ reading of the motivations behind each faked or real event – where a faked event is a crime anyway at these sorts of scales – seems to me a poor strategy. We risk being led around by the nose, divided, and conquered. Which is what I see. Hundreds of thousands of decent people angry and confused, shouting or ranting or arguing or reasoning at each other endlessly on the internet, as if that does much more than add to the noise.

We are also, though, figuring out how to use the internet constructively, to have it as our tool rather than our pimp or addiction-distraction. Which takes time. But focusing on principles and what we really can be sure about – in a situation dominated by Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns” – shortens that time.

When it comes to power elite dupery, when I say I’ve been wrong I can only think of two occasions – at least, before I committed to “paper” so to speak – which isn’t to say I haven’t been wrong on other occasions, these are the only two I can think of. One was that I believed all the 9/11 “Israel” and “people targeted in the buildings” propaganda. I, like most people, was just unaware of how sophisticated propaganda strategies are. The other was that I called a story fake when it wasn’t, however, in this case my Google searching just seemed to fail for some strange reason and I was a little premature. Also, I think misleadingly, the story, although true, was reported in a very strange way. So I don’t think I’m wrong often enough to pull back on what I say.

This is an absolute, incontrovertible fact, Toby:

The perps let us know that they’re hoaxing us through deliberate sloppiness of execution, not credible implausibilities, physical impossibilities, inappropriate vocabulary and register of language, contradictions, different versions of the story, discrepancy between show and tell, the actual truth and on and on.

Now if the perps TELL us what they’re up to and they do so using the same method each time, we should exercise thought and reason to recognise what they tell us. That is the least we can do. If we don’t it means we are denying our ability to work things out using our intelligence. And I don’t plan to do that anytime soon – although perhaps there’s a good case for doing so. Perhaps I will get along better in the world if I do that because certainly I feel as though any engagement in this area of discussion is just a constant bashing of my head against a brick wall.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 4, 2019 7:46 AM

Toby Russell

We should each do what we feel is right. But in this conversation between us on Off-Guardian right now, neither of us knows if the other is a cynical manipulator or a troll or genuine; we can’t look into each other’s eyes, for instance. And that significant problem is magnified enormously by the global nature of the internet, dis/information dissemination, the time each of us has to sort through it all while yet more is generated to sort through, and many other aspects framing this conversation.

Adding to that, we have the state of mind/consciousness of the rest of humanity and the pace of change it can handle. You feel like you are constantly bashing your head against a wall and I sympathise with you. I have perspectives and have had experiences almost nobody in my family is ready to deal with, even those closest to me. Sharing what I know scares people off, even though I talk about direct, personal experiences, those that are the tamest. And it hurts to become increasingly isolated. We are a very social animal not yet ready to learn that the world it thinks it knows so well is an illusion … to put it briefly.

So I fully agree that we must figure things out as best we can – albeit with the caveats I listed above – but how we strategise based on the information we gather is another matter, one that should be measured by its effectiveness. I trust, naively perhaps, that the truth will out. Right now, in my view, on the way to better outcomes the primary objective is carefully getting humanity from its slumbering, supine position and then through the subsequent stages of waking up, rather than shocking it, however politely, however urgently, into fully-informed wakefulness in one swift leap.

For what it’s worth, I think you handle your difficult situation with commendable politeness, courage, and strength.

I relate family-wise and I agree that for the general population you need to try to introduce the information in stages, but my main frustration is with people who are already awoken but who are still wedded to certain narratives.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 4, 2019 2:50 PM

Robbobbobin

Anyone who “proves” something to you (mis)using “Occam’s razor” (and many other distortions of straight thinking), on or off the Internet, ingenuously or disingenuously, is “proving” nothing except that what they hold or choose to hold as their opinion or unsupported belief, wittingly or unwittingly gussied up as “proof”. Occam’s razor is about strategising the development of arguments or a hypotheses leading to a particular (singular) conclusion en route to proving it; it does not (cannot) in any way constitute or even address the “proof” of a conclusion or any part thereof, either in itself of vis-a-vis any other, different conclusion/s.

The conversations of all ages prior to this electronic age were equally, if not more, afflicted by all the uncertainties you raise, if in different proportion and guise, hard as it was to communicate over what were effectively greater distances (the world has shrunk) and timescales, which is why so much of the energy of philosophical enquiry expended over thousands of years has been devoted to the development of formal logic: if the reasoning is based on a priori principles then only the material “facts” have to be verified or replicable to arrive at and communicate reasonably reliable conclusions; if not, then everything, including the honesty or dishonesty of the argument as well as the method has to be evaluated solely on the basis of personal inclination.

Finally, there are the ethics of wilfully using dishonest methods of argument (and more than enough commenters have told flaxgirl in more than enough different ways to “wise up or put up” to support, though not prove, a hypothesis of willfulness).

Personal accusations and assertions of anything, not excluding calumny, have a way of spreading and impacting on their subject unpredictably and unexpectedly in manners quite unforseen and unintended. If Chelsea Manning is not a secret service asset of the deep state, sent to confuse and disorient the “sheeple” (an ugly and in almost all usages an inherently contemptuous word) then for her ongoing part in the war diaries revelations (or read “confirmations”) she will have endured an enormous amount of stress, certainly from officialdom and, as likely, from strangers on the street. Who knows if or how, in this global village, flaxgirl’s compulsion to tart up her cavalier suppositions with a totally spurious simulacrum of academic authority will not inspire some equally intellectually inept fellow traveller in the bizarre, real+fantasy world of “controlled opposition” and other witchcrafteries to add directly, to whatever, to those already heavy stresses on what may be one of the world’s most principled public informants?

Unconscious dishonest argument is open to correction; but if willfully promulgated regardless of attempted correction it is often also injustice and persecution waiting to happen and, on whatever the metric, never to be tolerated–there be wildfire ignorance and the ages of the inquisitions.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 5, 2019 2:38 AM

Robbobbobin

…if not, then everything, including the honesty or dishonesty of the argument as well as its content…

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 5, 2019 3:34 AM

Toby Russell

You miss my point but make many I profoundly agree with. It looks like I have adopted a different strategy to yours in my response to the situation you describe.

I would add one thing though: the equipment we have to handle that lastingly disorienting process of discovering and making sense of the webs of deceit we are all caught up in varies wildly from person to person, but invariably includes perhaps most importantly the quality of our consciousness. Hence, to be effective in managing this difficult process, at group level, the way we handle each other should be mindfully cognizant of those varieties and their unique constellations in others, as in ourselves, such that humility is a significant part of how we handle each other. Generally speaking.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 5, 2019 6:59 AM

Robbobbobin

“You miss my point…”

If you were adressing me, as the indentation suggests, then, on the contrary, I saw it and its admirable understanding of compassion in relation to the “us” in the noögenesis of Teilhard de Chardin’s (and others’, before, concurrent with and since) ‘noösphere’, and generally agree with you.

However, strategies are like things unto which there is a season and flaxgirl’s toxic disregard of any of the pre- and post-enlightment methodologies of reasoning; her equally toxic attacks on the integrity of those who don’t fit her evidence-free, fantasy-full, often breath-takingly negligent, extraordinarily facile and even distastefully personally abusive ‘analyses’ of them in the context of the events they were involved in; together with her pathologically persistent attempts at a single-minded manipulation of many of the individuals who subsequently disagree with her vapidities in the many different fora in which she chooses to put herself about–all are indicative of a needless winter a’comin. From the many nests of Internet vipers she frequents, she seems to emerge elsewhere as an intentional co-optee or as a prime patsy “asset” of their many psychotic dissimulations, disinformations, incoherences, misdirections and all-round mindfucks. And I think it’s possible that she means to do just that. ICBWB…

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 11, 2019 6:52 AM

Toby Russell

I deeply respect your observations and intelligence (and sense of fun) Robbobbobin, but you are missing my point in this very narrow case. I suspect we agree more than you appear to realise. You have your way/style/manner, I have mine.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 11, 2019 2:07 PM

Robbobbobin

“…you are missing my point in this very narrow case.”

Could be. I thought I was neatly sliding around it without actually touching it by way of a segue to banging on an only slightly related, quite different drum. The trouble with words is the words…

I state on my website my interpretation of Occam’s Razor and that is how I use it.

What hypothesis fits the evidence with the fewest assumptions and questions raised.

It is so very, very simple and effective – except that people do not accept the way I use it. They will not believe that the fact that they cannot provide a SINGLE POINT that favours the hypothesis they believe over the one that I put forward has any significance. According to them, there is no onus on them to defend their belief. It’s only on me to defend mine. Well, I do – with 10 points for a number of hypotheses – and yet still they won’t believe.

Complete and utter bullshit, Robbobbobin, complete and utter bullshit. I am not academic or scholarly in any shape or form and make no pretence to be. But I do understand basic logic and that, as far as I’m concerned, is all that’s required. If we were talking about events where the evidence did not support one hypothesis clearly that would be a different matter. I don’t touch those kinds of things. I’m only interested where ALL the evidence fits one hypothesis and there is none favouring any competing hypotheses … and you are not required to go into the bowels of a library to do the research to find the information out. What I deal with is pretty straightforward … and that is, of course, because they always stage things to give the game away – it’s part of their MO. They are generous in that way – can’t fault them there.

I don’t accept that Occam’s Razor cannot prove something. It entirely depends on the context. If you have only two hypotheses needing consideration and all the evidence (of which there is a reasonable amount) favours one hypothesis over the other, in what possible scenario can the unsupported hypothesis be correct? Please give me a scenario where that hypothesis could be correct.

It’s all so simple Robbobbobin, and all your words are just complete and utter nonsense.

There are similar/overlapping phenomena of controlled opposition, espionage, infiltration, etc.

There is no reason not to expect that the power elite would try to implement the above phenomena to undermine Wikileaks and also to use for these phenomena for their own purposes.

The media tell many lies.

Do you also agree that at the outset the following two hypotheses carry equal weight. That the first does not carry any more weight than the second without consideration of the evidence for each. Do you agree with that? If not, can you please provide your reason.

Chelsea is a genuine whistleblower.
Chelsea is a fake whistleblower.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 7, 2019 1:49 AM

Robbobbobin

“OK, Robbobbobin, I just want to get something straight with you.

Do you agree with the following: …”

I’ve let that question lie for a while to allow time for a polite way of responding to occur to me.

I’m not sure it has, but my answer is: while reserving the right–subject to the Admin’s prerogative–to respond to your posts without any interpersonal followup, I’d henceforth prefer to let someone–anyone–else interact with your particular style of “discussion”, should they be inclined to so waste their time, rather than me.

You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometime
You just might find
You really don’t like
Getting what you need.

Robbobbobin, it’s very important to be able to admit fault in your argument. If you don’t do that it means you’re not capable of changing your mind about something. And all of us are very much victims of believing falsities (I know I’ve believed many) that we need to change our minds on – as Jonathan Swift said though:

A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying… that he is wiser today than yesterday.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 8, 2019 1:31 AM

Robbobbobin

Restatement of your qestion, “I wonder if you’ve read my page on Wikileaks. Have you actually done that?” should have preceeded my reply, “Of course I have. Some months ago and again more recently. It confused me in a very specific way: I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.”

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 11, 2019 7:09 AM

Robbobbobin

“Complete and utter bullshit, Robbobbobin, complete and utter bullshit. I am not academic or scholarly in any shape or form and make no pretence to be.”

Is bullshit upon bullshit bullshit² or part of a Cantoresque heirarchy of bullshit? Whichever: bullshit.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 11, 2019 7:04 AM

Robbobbobin

“This is why Occam’s Razor works so well – there’s rarely any evidence that can be construed as contradictory so it’s impossible to come up with points that favour any competing hypotheses.”

You really aren’t going to take the trouble to learn anything about the nature of philosophic enquiry as it has been generally developed for thousands of years and specifically developed, in the post-enlightment era of scientific falsifiability, are you?

In neither case does your beloved Occam’s razor (or, more exactly, as it was actually formulated, understood and applied, outside of your beloved thought process of confusing your totally unsupported, incontrovertible evidence free and sometimes reprehensibly scurrilous guesses) have anything to do with competing hypotheses that seek to explain different conclusions.

If you entertain the conclusion that Chelsea Manning is a secret service asset based on your observations of five necessary aspects of how she has presented herself and someone else reaches the same conclusion based on only three necessary aspects of how she has presented herself, then Occam’s razor suggests that going with the latter is preferable, subject to their separate proof. Of such proof it says nothing; it is not a tool of any use in establishing the validity of (“proving”) a hypothesis.

Similarly, if you entertain the conclusion that Chelsea Manning is not a secret service asset based on your observations of five necessary aspects of how she has presented herself and someone else reaches the same conclusion based on only three necessary aspects of how she has presented herself, then Occam’s razor suggests that going with the latter is preferable, subject to their separate proof. Of such proof it says nothing; it is not a tool of any use in establishing the validity of (“proving”) a hypothesis.

However, if you entertain the conclusion that Chelsea Manning is a secret service asset based on your observations of five necessary aspects of how she has presented herself and someone else reaches the different, conclusion, that she is not based on only three necessary aspects of how she has presented herself, then Occam’s razor is of no use.

Occam’s razor PROVES nothing; never has, never will.

It is a tool to strategize the process of adducing the proof of the same conclusion between various hypotheses proposing to support it. Addressing hypotheses seeking to prove different conclusions is outwith its functionality. If you attempt to use it in that way you do not just invite the expression of one or more logical fallacies, you embody them: what you imagine you have “proven” is just another opinion, principled and courageous or scurrilous and reprehensible as maybe. Either way, you end up being and, depending on the educational background of the perceiver, also looking stupid. If you want to find out why in detail, you will need to work for it by acquiring yourself some education in formal logic. There’s plenty of it around, from expensive texts and courses to excellent, free online teaching.

I looked and looked in your long post but I didn’t find the evidence for Chelsea being a genuine whistleblower, Robbobbobin. Looked and looked and couldn’t find it. Did I miss it somewhere? Perhaps you can give me explicitly just a single piece of evidence that supports Chelsea being a genuine whistleblower.

Just the one.

If you haven’t got just the one then perhaps you can explain to me why you believe she is a genuine whistleblower, assuming you do. If you don’t believe she is a genuine whistleblower can you let me know what your belief is on Chelsea’s status as a whistleblower is and why?

Vote Up0-1Vote Down Reply

Aug 5, 2019 5:21 AM

Robbobbobin

“I looked and looked in your long post but I didn’t find the evidence for Chelsea being a genuine whistleblower, Robbobbobin. Looked and looked and couldn’t find it. Did I miss it somewhere?”

No, you didn’t miss it somewhere because I didn’t raise it anywhere. I was addressing the implications as an investigative process of the question you posted and I quoted at the beginning of my “long post” in response, which are that it would be pointless to discuss with you the matter of Chelsea Manning or anyone or anything else–past, present or yet to exist–being this, that, the other or something else altogether, for obvious reasons that you have yet again just now confirmed as being valid. I suggest you stick with ferociously arguing with your sister in private and bleating in public. Call that the Mokum’s razor for the all-round reduction of pointless efforts. https://youtu.be/zqiblXFlZuk

But Robbobbobin what you seem to suggest is that the hypothesis “Chelsea Manning is a genuine whistleblower” is correct until proven otherwise. Can I suggest that when it comes to anything the media says there is no default hypothesis (unless there is clear evidence to support what they say).

The hypotheses:
Chelsea Manning is a genuine whistleblower and
Chelsea Manning is a fake whistleblower

have equal credibility right from the start.

So I have given quite a number of points that both directly and indirectly support Chelsea Manning being a fake whistleblower while you have given precisely zero points of any kind to support that she’s genuine.

However, you seem to believe that without a single point to support the hypothesis “Chelsea Manning is a genuine whistleblower” you have a greater right to believe that than I have to believe the hypothesis that she’s a fake whistleblower when I have quite a number of points that support that hypothesis not to mention logic and precedence that would suggest it’s not at all improbable.

Nice one, Ash: of course, an Israeli asset commenting on an Israeli asset is a no-no

You say ‘Israeli’ you really mean ‘Jewish’, don’t you?

Vote Up0-5Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 6:28 AM

Robbobbobin

‘”…an Israeli asset commenting on an Israeli asset is a no-no…”
You say ‘Israeli’ you really mean ‘Jewish’, don’t you?’

Your sources on practically every discussion you post in here (the Stupid Party, the Stupid Channel, STUP-ID Talk Radio, the Stupid Daily Gazette, the Stupid Weekly Review, Artificial Stupidity, what/whoever) has left you pretty ill-informed about things it would seem. No?

You’ll forgive me if I don’t regard some conspiracy theorist eking out a living on YouTube as the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein…

Vote Up0-3Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 9:04 AM

George

Woodward and Bernstein uncovered a conspiracy. Interestingly the wiki articles for both do not mention the dreaded word “conspiracy”. But the wiki article for “Watergate Scandal” says this (emphasis added):

“The Watergate scandal was a major American political scandal that lasted from 1972 to 1974, following a burglary by five men of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972, and President Richard Nixon’s subsequent attempt to cover up his administration’s involvement. After the five burglars were caught and the CONSPIRACY was discovered—chiefly through the work of a few journalists, Congressional staffers and an election-finance watchdog official—Watergate was investigated by the United States Congress. Meanwhile, Nixon’s administration resisted its probes, which led to a constitutional crisis.”

And there’s that nasty “C” word right there. But it is essential NOT to mention this word as far as possible since that would give the game away i.e. the assumption that the “C” word denotes some kind of intellectual leprosy. It therefore must only be used for the conspiracies one wants to denounce.

the assumption that the “C” word denotes some kind of intellectual leprosy

Doesn’t it?

Vote Up0-3Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 10:58 AM

George

No William, the very fact that even the bold wiki admits that there are actual conspiracies indicates that “conspiracy theory” is a valid line of investigation.

Vote Up3-1Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 12:54 PM

Toby Russell

Exactly. As is the fact that “conspiracy theory” has been so deliberately massaged into a pejorative clear evidence that our Masters and Betters do indeed conspire (plan stuff behind closed doors). They need their subjects to believe them above all that. And for the most part, sadly, their target audience shares that need. It’s frightening to believe otherwise.

Equally, the assertion that 19 Arabs hijacked 4 planes on 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory. It’s thus very revealing that it is never referred to as such in the mass media.

Vote Up10Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 5:54 PM

George

George Orwell wrote a fascinating afterword to “1984” where he put forward the idea that if you control peoples’ vocabulary then you can control their thoughts. They cannot protest against something if they have no words for it. And the word “conspiracy” has been deliberately tainted to connotate gullibility, stupidity and even madness. The word has been used in this way so often that it virtually refutes itself now. It is as if the propagandists have taken that word out of the language – or at least out of the language of “serious” debate.

Vote Up10Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 6:12 PM

Brian Harry

Being “branded” as a Conspiracy Theorist should be seen as someone who has read/watched the MSM, and recognised it for what it is……absolute “Bovine Excreta”…….Murdoch is famous for it and so is Fox(Murdoch again)CNN, WAPO,NYT, etc etc……The fact that the MSM has turned on Assange is living proof that they are in cahoots with our Masters.

No William, the very fact that even the bold wiki admits that there are actual conspiracies indicates that “conspiracy theory” is a valid line of investigation

The tendency to subscribe to even the most ludicrous of conspiracy theories is a recognised symptom of mental illness. This is not to deny that conspiracies exist at all, simply that, when a site, such as this, actively encourages discussions ‘outside the Overton window’, the ensuing discourse can resemble a lunatic asylum. While I don’t seek to silence (I regard it as part of their therapy), one can’t help but take the piss.

I’m a curious choice for you to invite to self censor, given some of the other commentators you have here.

If you truly believe in free speech, then you cannot allow some of the attitudes expressed here to go unchallenged. It is one thing to not proscribe ideas that expressed publicly elsewhere could well lead to a police investigation, quite another to protect them from any kind of debate.

Despite your injunction not to resort to ad hominems, this is the second time you have, and I have not seen you once criticise another commentator–they seem to be the lingua franca of Off Guardian.

BTW, Troll is the accusation you make when debating unsuccessfully from a fixed position. It is the internet equivalent of squealing ‘it’ s not fair’ to your mother.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 4, 2019 10:45 AM

George

Oh Billy Boy you have fallen for the trick all the way. Psychobabble about “conspiracy theorists” is predicated the blandly assumed notion that they are ALWAYS wrong in advance. Just as you instantly brought in that good od Freudian baggage for your 5g argument. And then there’s the rich psychowaffle in that link. There’s so much wrong with that that it’s hard to know what to pick. Take this:

“50% of Americans believe in at least one conspiracy theory – whether it be the U.S. government’s involvement in 9/11 or the existence of aliens.”

…or the claim that Al Qaeda were behind 9/11…or that the Russians are waging cyber warfare with the US etc etc. Funny how they don’t mention these ones.

Which brings us to the main point. As I say below, the word “conspiracy” has been deliberately tainted – although, as I noted above, the media is highly selective in its use of the “C” word. You see, some conspiracies ARE conspiracies – and therefore “wrong” e.g. 9/11 as inside job. But are other conspiracies e.g. Al Qaeda were behind 9/11, since they are assumed to be right, are never referred to as “conspiracies”. Thus do we uphold the game of protecting “sanity”.

The thing is, George, that the real conspiracy is not necessarily what Woodward and Bernstein “uncovered”. It seems that perhaps a certain conspiracy narrative was pushed out to hide a different crime. They’re good at that. It could be that Watergate was simply a CIA plot to get rid of Nixon and had something to do with a paedophile operation run by Gordon Liddy which was being used to lure and blackmail politicians and the like. Doesn’t Deep Throat, with its Linda Lovelace overtones, sound exactly like the term the CIA would invent?https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/08/24/the-ghost-of-roy-cohn/
(Page may take while to load.)

They first told us that it was the Red Brigades who bombed Bologna station in 1980, then they told us it was the neo-fascists. But the evidence clearly shows is was an intelligence operation where a bomb was let off in an evacuated area – and they give us all the clues with no evidence of death or injury and great discrepancy between show and tell. So it was not the first story, nor the second but a third.https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/bologna-1980-and-mogadishu-2017.html

It’s a tricky business, George, a very tricky business, most of which we will never have a clue about.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 7, 2019 4:32 AM

George

I am aware that the Watergate matter may have been a case of diversion from deeper matters. And Nixon was one of the sacrificial goats that the deep state occasionally sinks to protect bigger fish. But the point I was making is that, when the media wants you to accept a conspiracy as a fact, they tend to avoid the word “conspiracy” since that word has been so carefully moulded as a scare term i.e. it is wheeled out to scare people off.

“You’ll forgive me if I don’t regard some conspiracy theorist eking out a living on YouTube as the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein…”

Going by the indentation, that seems to be a reply to my attempt to heap abusive scorn on your general position on anything, so my answer has to be: I might well forgive you if I had the vaguest clue re to whom you are referring. Which YouTube eker?

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 7, 2019 1:58 AM

Brian Harry

“You say ‘Israeli’ you really mean ‘Jewish’, don’t you?”
……Since when have the Palestinians had a voice???
I think we can safely assume that ‘Israeli’ means ‘Jewish’……Is that a problem?

Vote Up0-1Vote Down Reply

Aug 3, 2019 9:30 PM

Robbobbobin

“I think we can safely assume that ‘Israeli’ means ‘Jewish’…”

No, we cannot. Legislatively, that’s pretty much what it now means, but in terms of actual genes on the ground, including some in the highest echelons of the IDF and not excluding even some in Mossad, it does not.

Vote Up00Vote Down Reply

Aug 7, 2019 2:12 AM

Harry Stotle

Asymmetric power is a defining feature of all abusive regimes, and there are fewere more abusive regimes than the USA.

For reasons of expediency Britain and Sweden have fallen into line because it is far easier to sacrifice an individual rather than stand up for important principles, especially when countries like ours (the UK) has been a key player in creating the illusion of a ‘coalition’ against forces of evil (for coalition read US corporate and militray interests backed by feeble vassal states).

Not a single British or US political figure (unlike Julian) has been subject to legal proceedings, even though one million have died in Iraq – in fact war-mongers have grown rich or ever more powerful while journalists who expose their crimes have been punished, or as in Julians case totured.

The MSM is central to conditioning the public mind.
In fact the media is no more than the information wing of the intelligence services with the Guardian, an organ ostensibly meant to provide balance to Britains rabidly right wing press, being especially culpable.
In the case of Assange the Guardian speaks with one voice with a range of supposedly respectable journalists saying pretty much the same sort of nasty stuff, proving, if proof were needed, that group-think rather than independent thought is very much the order of the day under abysmal Viners leadership.

Al Burke is right to call for organisation and solidarity – more than ever Julian needs vigerous support.

Vote Up25-1Vote Down Reply

Aug 2, 2019 11:56 AM

George Cornell

“When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.”
GBS quote that applies here to the US.

Assange has already been incarcerated much longer than the average convicted murderer and even more so than convicted pedophiles in the US with rich pedo friends. Though not as long as some poor blacks who have robbed convenience stores but give them the chance and…

Assange’s treatment reeks as an outrageous offence against morality. I am not surprised that Swedes are embarrassed, they should be. I am completely on board with supporting a pro-Assange initiative. You can surely reach me and people like me at this site.

How about “ then they came for me” as a hashtag?

Vote Up230Vote Down Reply

Aug 2, 2019 11:38 AM

Fair dinkum

If the consuming dead are to be awakened the message/meme/hashtag/slogan/symbol must be short, sharp and salient.
Assange v The filthy rich?
Assange v Corrupt governments?
Assange= freedom- Corporations =suffering.
Assange = Truth- Governments = LIES.
Etc etc.
The consuming dead have eight second attention spans.
Our elected ‘leaders’ are proof of that.